- 11 -
the operation against petitioner. The statement petitioner
relies on is: "if the van would not have been there * * * we
could have pulled it off".
Petitioner had Sergeant DeFries on the witness stand and
could have examined him as to what the statement meant. He
failed to do so. Petitioner has the burden of proof as to the
meaning of the statement. His offer of a speculative
interpretation favorable to him is not persuasive and fails to
meet his burden of proof. We decline to find the behavior of the
police officers to be egregious on the bases of speculation and
innuendo.
Petitioner also denies, again without supporting evidence,
that the officers needed to make a protective sweep once they had
him in custody. This contradicts the testimony of the arresting
officers on several key points. A number of factors led the
officers to believe someone else might be in the house with
petitioner when they entered to make the arrest.
These officers put their lives on the line by entering a
house where they knew firearms and explosives had previously been
found. They did not know how many armed suspects they might
encounter. Society routinely asks them to assume such risks. We
will not second-guess the reasonable steps they took to minimize
those risks to themselves and to their fellow officers.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011